Jane Austin’s Emma depicts a society governed by breeding and wealth. In contrast, Amy Heckerling’s film Clueless, explores the values of consumerist, postmodern America. By adapting the genteel, class-based society of Highbury to the wealthy, superficial microcosm of 20th century Beverly Hills, an insight is given into residual and evolving values and attitudes towards class, marriage and gender roles over the past two centuries. Different visual and literary techniques highlight that while some aspects of society have changed, others remain the same.

The rigidity of class and clique is an aspect that is explored in both Emma and Clueless. When aware of Emma’s plans to match him with Harriet, Mr Elton expresses his disbelief with hyperbole: “I never thought of Miss Smith in the whole course of my existence… never cared if she were dead or alive…” Mr Elton is ardently against the notion of any romantic attachment to a social inferior, giving a satirical insight into how shallow and inflexible the class doctrine of the time was. Elton’s rhetorical questions towards Cher in Clueless show a similar class consciousness and sense of outrage at the possibility of being romantically interested in Tai: “Why Tai!? Why Tai!? Do you know who my father is?” A long shot of a blinking, neon clown sign dwarfs Cher after she is abandoned by Elton; a symbol of society’s mockery and disapproval of her attempts to undermine an inherent system of class and clique. Emma’s high modality and contemptuous attitude when she claims that “the yeomanry are precisely the order of people… with whom I feel I can have nothing to do” confirms the inflexibility of class interactions. However, a change is evident in Clueless, where we see the power of notoriety and celebrity fracturing the boundaries of social cliques and class when the socially unacceptable Tai is popularised through her ‘near-death’ experience in the mall. Clearly, while ingrained ideologies of class have been maintained, the guidelines that dictate position in class have not. The status afforded by breeding has been reconfigured to accommodate wealth, image and personality; an idea reinforced by Travis’ shift from drug-user clique to acceptable, ‘cool’ skateboarder.

Although Clueless appears to be socially fluid on the surface, the status quo is ultimately maintained throughout both texts. Austin’s authorial intrusion in “The intimacy between her [Harriet] and Emma must sink… into a calmer sort of goodwill… what ought to be, and must be” suggests a rigid hierarchy that must be left standing for the greater good of society, a notion which Emma finally realises during her maturation and rejection of matchmaking. The prevailing notion of class stratification is expressed when Tai reverts back to her flannel ‘working-class’ clothes at the skateboard park, a stark contrast to Cher who is dressed smartly with a hairband, sweater, plaid skirt and stockings. This image reinforces socioeconomic disparities and divisions between matchmaker and protégé. However, proxemics at a dining table during the wedding highlights a newfound sense of social balance now that Cher and Tai have resumed their previous positions in the social hierarchy. Hence, the notion that class status quo must be maintained for the greater good of society is transposed from Emma to Clueless.

Another intertextual theme that shapes understanding in Emma and Clueless is socially ideal relationships and marriage which involve the maturation and realisation of both Cher and Emma respectively. The mindset for respectable gentry was defined by ‘marriages of convenience’ with people of comparable class and wealth. Indeed, Austen’s wry authorial statement that opens Emma confirms the aims of the gentry. Austen’s use of the metaphor “It darted through her, with the speed of an arrow, that Mr Knightley must marry no one other than herself!” affirms the class preoccupation with socially acceptable matches. The arrow is used as a symbol of how Emma’s independent nature has been ‘shot down’ to be replaced by feelings for an ideal marriage candidate

– the socially acceptable and patriarchal Mr Knightly. Furthermore, during Emma’s mocking reflection of Mr Elton’s attempt to court her, the hyperbole in “The Elton’s were nobody” highlights the resentment of the gentility towards socially incompatible matches. Similarly, Cher comments with a plain-spoken tone that “no respectable girl” should date a ‘loadie’, affirming the belief that only socially similar people should romantically engage, has been transposed into postmodern contexts. Therefore, both texts highlight worlds in which marriages and relationships are portrayed by the need for social acceptability over purely romantic expectations.

`

Emma and Clueless offer profound and satirical insights into their respective contexts. In analysing both texts together, the transformation of original values and attitudes can be seen, highlighting similarities and contrasts between genteel and postmodern settings, which, in turn, reflect a shift in values during the transformation process. Emma and Clueless both attest to the ongoing preoccupation with social relationships, gender equality and shifting social values. Yet, whilst Cher and Emma transgress the social and gender expectations of their times, both texts affirm that although young, naïve women may waiver in their social propriety, the desire for security and long term happiness sees them re-align with their social class, and happily accept deference to stereotypical patriarchal roles. Regardless of historical or geographical contexts, female and male characters represent long held social proprieties, suggesting that cultural and social behaviors are deeply seated and resistant to post-modernist revisions of class, social behavior and women’s roles.